Opposition grows to benefit cap
Discussion
REALIST123 said:
Ahhh, so rent doesn't count? So all those working to pay mortgages have been wasting their time, the government can pay for their houses at no cost to anyone?
Wake up FFS. WE CANT AFFORD IT!
Rents are at an all time high, due to every incumbent at 10 Downing Street, since the reign of Maggie the Merciless allowing councils to sell of their housing stock, but not to replenish them by building more homes........and it has been a downward spiral ever since.Wake up FFS. WE CANT AFFORD IT!
What we can't afford is for companies like Amazon, et al to pay the f
king pittance in tax that they do - compared to the billions of pounds they earn in this country year in, year out. Wake up. The countries missing billions in tax from these multinationals is where your pent up rage would be better directed......xjsdriver said:
Rents are at an all time high, due to every incumbent at 10 Downing Street, since the reign of Maggie the Merciless allowing councils to sell of their housing stock, but not to replenish them by building more homes........and it has been a downward spiral ever since.
When these houses were sold did they disappear or are they still there, just with different owners?xjsdriver said:
What we can't afford is for companies like Amazon, et al to pay the fking pittance in tax that they do - compared to the billions of pounds they earn in this country year in, year out.
They don't.king pittance in tax that they do - compared to the billions of pounds they earn in this country year in, year out. xjsdriver said:
Wake up. The countries missing billions in tax from these multinationals is where your pent up rage would be better directed......
No tax is due, so nothing is missing.HTH
sidicks said:
russ_a said:
This is something I never understood. Places like Tesco pay poorly and the tax payer tops us their staff wages. Just force Tesco to pay a living wage.
For the millionth time, the minimum wage would be the 'living wage' if the government didn't tax it...Blame the government for taxing people so heavily to fund excessive spending!
37.5hrs/week x 52 weeks = £10K/year - within the tax-free allowance.
Minimum wage 21+ = £6.50/hr x 52 weeks = 12.5K
Tax at 20% on 2.5K = £500/year or £10/week.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't like to live on it but I believe you are incorrect with your assertion of "heavy taxation" on minimum wage earners.
sidicks said:
No tax is due, so nothing is missing.
HTH
Now, I fear we're in for a discourse on pedantry........ Take away the "clever" schemes, make everyone pay the same rates of business/corporation tax. Takeaway the loopholes, jail the worst of offenders from the big boys - watch the rest fall into line..... It's always the little guy that takes the hit when it comes to tax. While it may be totally legal at this moment in time to avoid tax, is it the moral thing to do? I think a level tax playing field would be a vote winner.HTH
OzzyR1 said:
Minimum wage 18-20 = £5.10/hr.
37.5hrs/week x 52 weeks = £10K/year - within the tax-free allowance.
Minimum wage 21+ = £6.50/hr x 52 weeks = 12.5K
Tax at 20% on 2.5K = £500/year or £10/week.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't like to live on it but I believe you are incorrect with your assertion of "heavy taxation" on minimum wage earners.
What about NIC?37.5hrs/week x 52 weeks = £10K/year - within the tax-free allowance.
Minimum wage 21+ = £6.50/hr x 52 weeks = 12.5K
Tax at 20% on 2.5K = £500/year or £10/week.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't like to live on it but I believe you are incorrect with your assertion of "heavy taxation" on minimum wage earners.
Hackney said:
Nothing else has changed, in fact many costs have gone up, but Cameron expects people to get by on £3,000 per year less. How?
Most of the cost of benefits is still rent, yet rents go up and house prices go up.
Can you explain why the fvck we should pay someone more to sit on their fvcking arse watching TV than someone else EARNS busting a gut on minimum wage? 23 grand cap, tax free, isn't enough, who are you fvcking kidding? Jesus Christ.Most of the cost of benefits is still rent, yet rents go up and house prices go up.
sidicks said:
OzzyR1 said:
Minimum wage 18-20 = £5.10/hr.
37.5hrs/week x 52 weeks = £10K/year - within the tax-free allowance.
Minimum wage 21+ = £6.50/hr x 52 weeks = 12.5K
Tax at 20% on 2.5K = £500/year or £10/week.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't like to live on it but I believe you are incorrect with your assertion of "heavy taxation" on minimum wage earners.
What about NIC?37.5hrs/week x 52 weeks = £10K/year - within the tax-free allowance.
Minimum wage 21+ = £6.50/hr x 52 weeks = 12.5K
Tax at 20% on 2.5K = £500/year or £10/week.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't like to live on it but I believe you are incorrect with your assertion of "heavy taxation" on minimum wage earners.
Point still stands, tax isn't that "heavy" and I believe all earners should have to pay NIC - if not, future pension, NHS etc problems would get even worse than they are now if that is even possible.
As I said, I wouldn't like to have to live on it, feel for the many that do.
Think there should be a "London" if not a "South-East" additional allowance to the min wage at least.
xjsdriver said:
Now, I fear we're in for a discourse on pedantry........ Take away the "clever" schemes, make everyone pay the same rates of business/corporation tax. Takeaway the loopholes, jail the worst of offenders from the big boys - watch the rest fall into line..... It's always the little guy that takes the hit when it comes to tax. While it may be totally legal at this moment in time to avoid tax, is it the moral thing to do? I think a level tax playing field would be a vote winner.
Corporation tax is paid on profits - don't make a profit, don't pay tax. Very simple...sidicks said:
Stuff
Yes, the houses are still there...... but the money paid to the councils has long since been spent on other things. The money was never reinvested in building new housing stock to replace those sold off. Supply became shorter, prices went up with demand - a fairly simple economic principle (which in this case has caused a housing shortage not seen since the war), which I was certain you'd be familiar with, but apparently not........xjsdriver said:
Yes, the houses are still there...... but the money paid to the councils has long since been spent on other things. The money was never reinvested in building new housing stock to replace those sold off. Supply became shorter, prices went up with demand - a fairly simple economic principle (which in this case has caused a housing shortage not seen since the war), which I was certain you'd be familiar with, but apparently not........
The supply is still there, but in private hands not council hands.98elise said:
George111 said:
I don't know why he's so bothered about this, there are very few people claiming that much and £135m is a drop in the ocean. How about the in work benefits they have to pay out to people who work but don't earn enough ! Raise the minimum wage to be the living wage then they can cut out billions not just a handful of million.
He also wants to cut housing benefit to 18-21 year olds . . . so where will they live ? That's a cretinous thing to so, just moronic. It won't even save much money - he's looking at his feet and he should be looking round the next bend !
Also, with this constant pressure on benefits, what happens when I or you need to claim ? Maybe after a car accident we can't work - I've paid tax for 26 years continuously, I pay a lot more tax per month than somebody on the average wage earns but I'll be told I've got savings or I own a house or even if I do end up qualifying I'll get such a small amount to make it of little value. There should be a contributions element in the benefit . . . that would encourage people to work surely ?
Why does an 18-21 year old need the state to pay for their home? I left home when I could afford it.He also wants to cut housing benefit to 18-21 year olds . . . so where will they live ? That's a cretinous thing to so, just moronic. It won't even save much money - he's looking at his feet and he should be looking round the next bend !
Also, with this constant pressure on benefits, what happens when I or you need to claim ? Maybe after a car accident we can't work - I've paid tax for 26 years continuously, I pay a lot more tax per month than somebody on the average wage earns but I'll be told I've got savings or I own a house or even if I do end up qualifying I'll get such a small amount to make it of little value. There should be a contributions element in the benefit . . . that would encourage people to work surely ?
I earned £25 or so a week from a part-time job, the rest of my board and lodging was topped up with Housing Benefit.
Back in the day, 16 - 18 year-olds were eligible for this.
This enabled me to get my 'A' Levels, and thence to University. Without benefits, participation in Higher Education would have been impossible.
Funnily enough, I've been a Higher Rate taxpayer ever since...
Mobile Chicane said:
I left home aged 17, simply because the situation at 'home' was intolerable.
I earned £25 or so a week from a part-time job, the rest of my board and lodging was topped up with Housing Benefit.
Back in the day, 16 - 18 year-olds were eligible for this.
This enabled me to get my 'A' Levels, and thence to University. Without benefits, participation in Higher Education would have been impossible.
Funnily enough, I've been a Higher Rate taxpayer ever since...
Unfortunately, you are the exception rather than the rule.I earned £25 or so a week from a part-time job, the rest of my board and lodging was topped up with Housing Benefit.
Back in the day, 16 - 18 year-olds were eligible for this.
This enabled me to get my 'A' Levels, and thence to University. Without benefits, participation in Higher Education would have been impossible.
Funnily enough, I've been a Higher Rate taxpayer ever since...
sidicks said:
Mobile Chicane said:
I left home aged 17, simply because the situation at 'home' was intolerable.
I earned £25 or so a week from a part-time job, the rest of my board and lodging was topped up with Housing Benefit.
Back in the day, 16 - 18 year-olds were eligible for this.
This enabled me to get my 'A' Levels, and thence to University. Without benefits, participation in Higher Education would have been impossible.
Funnily enough, I've been a Higher Rate taxpayer ever since...
Unfortunately, you are the exception rather than the rule.I earned £25 or so a week from a part-time job, the rest of my board and lodging was topped up with Housing Benefit.
Back in the day, 16 - 18 year-olds were eligible for this.
This enabled me to get my 'A' Levels, and thence to University. Without benefits, participation in Higher Education would have been impossible.
Funnily enough, I've been a Higher Rate taxpayer ever since...
HB was abolished for 16 - 18 year-olds in the late 1980s if I recall.
I do wonder how many able potential students since then have been excluded from Higher Education simply because their parents could not afford for them to 'stay on' at school.
sidicks said:
russ_a said:
This is something I never understood. Places like Tesco pay poorly and the tax payer tops us their staff wages. Just force Tesco to pay a living wage.
For the millionth time, the minimum wage would be the 'living wage' if the government didn't tax it...Blame the government for taxing people so heavily to fund excessive spending!
40 hrs / week, 52 weeks a year gives you £13,520.
Tax and NI on that is a paltry £1,371 - about £27/week.
You are barking up the wrong tree If you think tax is the issue.
There is an imbalance between the price of labour and the return on capital - pretty obvious if you look at the astronomical shift of money into buy to lets by the armchair landlord.
While I am sure you will agree that flight of capital into but to lets is perfectly reasonable if Dave the IT contractor can afford to finance one (with the tax saved by contracting through an agency even though he has 'contracted' on the same doomed NHS IT contract for 7 years) - I am not convinced of the long term benefit to society or the economy by an imbalance between the value of labour and that of a s
tty 2 bed shoebox in zone 3.Part of the problem is that there is an abundance of people flocking to the South East, so a surplus of workers driving down the price of labour. Blend liberally with a shortage of housing stock in areas where you won't get stabbed and you have a perfect storm of low wages and his rents.
In the end of it all, out of work benefits are not a particulalry burdensome drain. Pensions and the NHS burn more money by quite a margin, no?
But the unemployed and the low paid are a relatively easy target for those with comfortable careers.
sidicks said:
xjsdriver said:
Yes, the houses are still there...... but the money paid to the councils has long since been spent on other things. The money was never reinvested in building new housing stock to replace those sold off. Supply became shorter, prices went up with demand - a fairly simple economic principle (which in this case has caused a housing shortage not seen since the war), which I was certain you'd be familiar with, but apparently not........
The supply is still there, but in private hands not council hands.Where will private LLs get the yield to repay their borrowing and make profit unless the rents go up substantially?
johnfm said:
min wage is £6.50 per hour, no?
40 hrs / week, 52 weeks a year gives you £13,520.
Tax and NI on that is a paltry £1,371 - about £27/week.
You are barking up the wrong tree If you think tax is the issue.
I guess it might help if you did the relevant calculation?40 hrs / week, 52 weeks a year gives you £13,520.
Tax and NI on that is a paltry £1,371 - about £27/week.
You are barking up the wrong tree If you think tax is the issue.
Living wage (pre-tax amount) is £7.85 per hour = £14,287 p.a. (35 hours per week, 52 weeks per year)
On this you pay income tax of £857 and NIC of £760 to give net pay of £12,670 which is £6.75 per hour, not so dissimilar to the (untaxed) minimum wage.
Hackney said:
Nothing else has changed, in fact many costs have gone up, but Cameron expects people to get by on £3,000 per year less. How?
How do the millions of folk who work a full week, with all the costs that entails, and earn significantly less than the proposed cap get by? Let us not forget that benefits are untaxed, so you need about 5k more in salary to pay the tax and commuting costs of having a job.LucreLout said:
Hackney said:
Nothing else has changed, in fact many costs have gone up, but Cameron expects people to get by on £3,000 per year less. How?
How do the millions of folk who work a full week, with all the costs that entails, and earn significantly less than the proposed cap get by? Let us not forget that benefits are untaxed, so you need about 5k more in salary to pay the tax and commuting costs of having a job.The benefits cap wouldn't affect single claimants or couples. Most likely to be families in private rented sector. JSA (or ESA? ) + CTC + cb + HB + CTR.
The savings are meaningless - its just posturing.
edh said:
They get in-work benefits..
The benefits cap wouldn't affect single claimants or couples. Most likely to be families in private rented sector. JSA (or ESA? ) + CTC + cb + HB + CTR.
The savings are meaningless - its just posturing.
I disagree. We should be capping all benefits and reducing them such that they eventually net out at a maximum 80% of the post tax minimum wage, thereby making anyone working a full 40 hour week better off for the effort than someone choosing not to.The benefits cap wouldn't affect single claimants or couples. Most likely to be families in private rented sector. JSA (or ESA? ) + CTC + cb + HB + CTR.
The savings are meaningless - its just posturing.
I'm not suggesting that's what CMD is proposing, only that it's the first step on a long road, but it is at least a step in the right direction.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff